An Opinion by Justice Lawrence L Koontz on the matter of Moorman v. Blackstock, Inc (6/6/2008)

Real Estate and Property Law covers an extensive legal area, which is regulated by federal and state statutes, as well as common law. Many aspects of this area overlap with contract law. The terms “real estate”, “realty” and “real property” are generally used interchangeably, although many people associate “real estate” more closely with the structures or buildings and the land. However, real property/real estate encompasses more than just the obviously tangible aspects. It comprises land and that which is attached to or belongs with the land, such as the immovable structures like buildings, houses, trees, bushes and minerals permanently affixed to the land, But it also consists of the interests, benefits and rights that are legally considered attached to the real property, which can include certain rights to the air above the land, to drill in the ground beneath it, rights to live on the property for a specific timeframe or to acquire the real property in the future, and more. (Waldron: 105-109)

The practice area of real estate and property law deals with a variety of related issues, including the following: rights and interests in real estate and real property; sales, purchases and other transfers of real estate and real property; legal aspects of rental property and landlord issues; tenants', renters' and homeowners' rights; title to real property; settlement of claims against property rights; property development; zoning and land use; related agriculture issues; home loans and foreclosures; and various other relevant topics. This is a complex practice area, further complicated by the significant inconsistency in the laws throughout different cities and states. Real estate attorneys are versed in many different activities, from the mundane drafting of deeds and filing of liens, to handling boundary and zoning disputes and even assisting families in court when threatened with foreclosure (Richard : 149-151)

Why summarize a “family feud” sort of case about the development of a family's rural real estate?  Because a Virginia Supreme Court case called Moorman v. Blackstock, Inc., ___ Va. ___, 661 S.E.2d 404, 23 VLW 45 (6/6/08), would seem to hold major implications for the Court of Appeals's current love affair with the idea of oral separation agreements.  After a local circuit court held that an exchange of correspondence and drafts between one family member and a local developer constituted a contract that bound all members of a family that together owned and inherited a 194-acre farm near Smith Mountain Lake, the Supreme Court reversed the grant of specific performance and granted judgment for the irate family members. (Ackerman: 45-61)

Not that this case, a non-divorce case, came through the Virginia Court of Appeals, to be sure.  But the same kind of dismay that those of us felt who learned back in the Day that there is no separation agreement until both spouses have signed the same piece of paper, and then were amazed to learn from the Court of Appeals that it ain't necessarily so, was ...